Talk:Philosophy of color

Proposed deletion

I oppose Shadowjams's proposed deletion of this article, Color fictionalism, for the following reasons. While it is a relatively recent theory of color and perception among academic philosophers, it is gaining traction and becoming more well-known. The notability criteria, I believe, is met by seeing in print and on the web several important sources that address the subject. Included in my references is an article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, perhaps the most well-known online encyclopedia of philosophy and one that is written by experts in the field, called "Color" (written by Barry Maund) that devotes several sections to the debate over color fictionalism and color realism (objectivism). More material can be found with regards to Color realism, however, I believe both theories should be included on wikipedia, even if one is more popular. JEN9841 (talk) 09:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

There should be more structure in the article. For instance it could be extended by introducing a section about the apparent tension between color physicalism and empirical results from kognitive psychology. And also, perhaps, some stage setting like showing its relation to other important theories in a more tidy manner, and perhaps an indication of the importance of the view in relation to certain theories of content. This way it could be more thoroughly embedded in the overall architecture of the philosophy section of the site. It isn't as though the subject is neglected in academic journals compared to how weirdly specific the topic seems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.10.138.68 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Article has merit, needs work

I think this page is very important, but the information is ridiculously biased! I am taking it upon myself to remove opinionated claims thoughout the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StatAge (talk • contribs) 22:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

   I moved the above, perhaps clueless, editor's talk contrib, bcz it was disruptive, at the top, for editors who understand and rely on wiki dynamics, and may have been effectively misinstructing those who may have brighter and more productive futures here, than many users who start IDing and removing bias (however ridiculously uncalled for the bias appears to have been in this instance), without having figured out

1. that,
2. how, and
3. why

we sign talk contributions.
--JerzyA (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

   Those interested in the subject might want to see more detail of the edit than just that colleague's removal (of what presumably had been a short but substantive addition), and minor rewording (identifiable below on this monochrome talk page, despite loss of hue-coded info provided by the diff facility) abt mutually parallel expressions that presumably were interchanged in user:StatAge's (unsigned but attributable) contrib: these are still recognizable here in my monochrome talk contrib, in the form adjacent, mutually synonymous words, what may have been the whole substance (tho it was not the exact sum) of that colleague's predominately content-removing changes:

... or vision became an important part of contemporary analytic philosophy due to the claim by scientists like Leo Hurvich that the physical and neurological aspects of color vision had become completely understood by empirical psychologists in the 1980's. TheAn majorimportant work responsible for the explosion of philosophical discourse on the topicsubject inwas. theC. 80's and 90's wasL. Hardin's 'Color for Philosophers', a one-hit-wonder that made Hardin's career. Color for philosophers which explained stunning empirical findings by empirical psychologists to the conclusion that colors can't possibly be part of physical world, but are instead purely mental features.

--JerzyA (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

As a notice on the article page requests attention from an expert in Philosophy (I am a Philosopher at Oxford with nearly 30 years professional experience - including with Aesthetics/ Art Theory), I concur with prior comments of 2014 and 2019 from StatAge, JerzyA, and user: 212.10.138.68 about (a) the importance of Wikipedia publishing an article concerning the topic 'Philosophy of Colour', and (b) the very poor state of this article as curently composed (despite recent minor improvements). As it stands, the article may (and in my opinion does) do harm both to an understanding of the topic, and the reputation of Wikipedia. The extensive necessary changes would indeed include major re-structuring, but in addition far supersede all the current content. Whether this is best accomplished by deleting the article and waiting for someone to start it again from scratch, or rather continuing to wait for the current article to be edited is not my place to say; however, I note while the justifyable concerns about the article originally date from 2014 (and were reaffirmed in 2019), during the intervening six years (!) there has been no attempt to address the scale of required revisions. While I do not have the time to edit the article, may I suggest that improvements of this article's structure and content perhaps take account of (and integrate) the perspectives and references included in such widely accessible professional resources as the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy - including (but not limited to) articles entitled: 'Theories of Colour', 'Colour and Qualia', 'Primary and Secondary Distinction', and 'Epistemic Issues in Perception'. A Wikipedia article entitled 'Philosophy of Colour' that provided a general overview of the field (with links to particular discussions of such various sub-topics in the professional literature) would be a most important help to both the generalist scholar and students (!). With Kind Regards, 129.67.116.16 (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC).

• A user in 2018 added a tag claiming that the article is slanted toward a color realism premised on obsolete science. I note that Newton's theory of color is a spectrum of wavelengths of light, which would be a realist perspective. Also David Hilbert, a mathematician born after Newton's theory of color, is mentioned in the article as a color realist. In other words, I feel that the actual problem is the opposite: that this article is slanted toward color fictionalism. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  I felt slightly indignant after reading this article. While it may have been an interesting debate 100 years ago, the fact that color realists continue to push the ideology is insane. After reading Tye's True Blue diatribe last night, I can only conclude that the man was obtusely ignoring every bit of research on color since 1950. I feel this article gives much too much wp:undue weight to modern realists. The debate should be rewritten in a historical context, given the overwhelming modern understanding of color theory and color science, which clearly has an objective and subjective component. In fact, modern debate on this point is moot. While the number of modern realists may be significant to the modern fictionalists (of those who choose to engage in this debate), those who focus on more scientific forms of color theory would never even consider realism. Its like philosophers arguing in favor of a flat earth... their opinion doesn't matter.

  Or perhaps I just don't understand philosophy at all... Curran919 (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

More structure and info that relates the subject to relevant areas of philosophy to improve overall relevance

There should be more structure in the article. For instance it could be extended by introducing a section about the apparent tension between color physicalism and empirical results from kognitive psychology. And also, perhaps, some stage setting like showing its relation to other important theories in a more tidy manner, and perhaps an indication of the importance of the view in relation to certain theories of content. This way it could be more thoroughly embedded in the overall architecture of the philosophy section of the site. It isn't as though the subject is neglected in academic journals compared to how weirdly specific the topic seems.

So:

1) And indication of why the theory poses some tough questions (i.e. the various obstacles in relation to intersubjective variability of location of unique hues, resemblance amongst colors that doesn't obviously square well with the structure of the proposed domain of physical properties etc.) 2) An indication of why the theory is worthy of further consideration (i.e. it has been claimed by many that some more popular and important theories of content presuppose the truth of physicalism, hence the question about the relationship between mind and matter is, to a considerable extend dependent upon the success of the theory). 3) An indication of how realism relates to other theories (in a more tidy exposition than what might be found in the article now).

This would improve it considerably and would mirror the way the theory is perceived by philosophers at the moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.10.138.68 (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)